What “uninformed students” didn’t know was that, for those thinking they were merely helping the CSU make some necessary adjustments to the by-laws, was actually approval for the CSU to gain the sole legal rights to a $7 million building fund. Couldn’t find that information could you?

…and many of them failed. I was blamed for that.

Is this assumption based on your intimate knowledge of the inner workings of student newspapers? Right, of course. If The Link does it, therefore The Concordian must want it.

For the record, The Concordian couldn’t even think about handing out honorariums - to contributors OR editors OR photographers - until it gets the production equipment it needs to produce a newspaper. My editors are doing layout on their own freakin’ LAPTOPS.

And we’re far from the point of “putting aside money for a rainy day” if we can’t spend $60 to pay for gas to get a sports editor to Quebec City to cover an away game.

This vote was not about a slush fund, or protection from an eventual legal suit, but about lifting this newspaper out of a 15-year outdated budget and into a relatively competitive position. More than that, the referendum question was about setting up a functional, energetic media force that will contribute to the student body for the next 10, 15 years.

As editor of this paper, the last thing I want is to take anything away from students. If students feel the benefits of equalizing finances between two student media are outweighed by the “leading” wording of a referendum question, or that four bucks a year is just one student fee too many, they are perfectly free to say no, as they did last March.

No matter where your allegiance lies, you have the chance to decide: it’s yes or no, do you support this paper or not.

I take your point about transparency and election questions. An objective third party SHOULD be making up the questions. But with Concordia politics being what they are, I can’t imagine what elections would look like if there wasn’t even the semblance of an argument on the ballot.

How much more ridiculous would the ‘election-crazies’ be, if, instead of being about a well-articulated issue that’s LAID OUT on the BALLOT, it was about how aggressive a group’s election campaign was to the average, uninformed student? You’re essentially asking for a popularity contest.

Flashy posters, cookies, BBQs, apples, any kind of gimmick has become the norm during elections. The CEO already had to forbid groups this year from using food as a means of campaigning because last year’s election threatened to spiral out of control.

What has also sadly become the norm is how some people’s brains apparently take leave of their reason around election period.

During the ballot-counting tonight, a Link staffer, insisting on being shown where the electoral regs state they couldn’t be an observer in the room where ballots were being tallied, was duly shown the rules, then had to be physically thrown out by elections officers when s/he still wouldn’t leave.

Even when regs are clear as day, some people insist on their right to be shown the door. Maybe if there was a fundamental respect for the rules of the game in the first place, then when good rules are finally set in place, the election-crazies will stop.